Teaching Grammar: A Survey of Teachers’ Attitudes in

245

THE JOURAL OF ASIA TEFL Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 245-273, Autumn 2009

Teaching Grammar: A Survey of Teachers’

Attitudes in Vietnam∗∗∗∗

Le Van Canh

Hanoi University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam

Roger Barnard

University of Waikato, �ew Zealand

Although it is now generally agreed that grammar should be an integral

element of second language programmes, there is still a diversity of

opinions about how it should be taught. In this paper, attention is first

drawn to relevant issues raised in reviews of the teaching of grammar

derived from SLA research and teacher cognition. This paper then

reports a survey of Vietnamese teachers’ attitudes towards grammar and

grammar teaching in their own particular teaching contexts. It uses a

questionnaire adapted from that used in a 2002 survey of teachers of

English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in British universities and in a

2008 parallel survey of EAP teachers in New Zealand. The key findings

of the present study are presented and then discussed in relation to those

of the other two surveys. They indicate that these EAP teachers in

Vietnam, like those in Britain and New Zealand, appreciate the

centrality of grammar in their language teaching and have a critical

awareness of many of the problems and issues involved. The findings

suggest that the teachers favour a discourse, rather than a

decontextualised approach to the presentation of grammar and there is

an emphasis on systematic practice of grammatical forms and the

correction of grammatical errors.

* An earlier version of this article was presented at the 13th International

Conference on English in South East Asia, Singapore 4-6 December, 2008.

Teaching Grammar: A Survey of Teachers’ Attitudes and Beliefs in Vietnam

246

Key words: Grammar, Vietnam, teacher attitudes, survey, EAP

I TRODUCTIO

The teaching of grammar continues to be a matter of controversy in the

field of applied linguistics and second language teaching. It is generally

agreed that some attention to grammatical form is useful, perhaps necessary,

but many issues related to the teaching of grammar still need further research,

especially into the key social factors that are an inescapable element of

classroom learning. Chief among these social factors are the personalities of

the teachers and learners – and their individual and collective constructions of

classroom reality. Increasingly, the beliefs and attitudes of practising teachers

are being sought to shed light on theoretical concerns in the teaching of

grammar, such as the nature of implicit/explicit learning, the way that

grammar is best presented, the need for various types of evaluative feedback,

the role of practice, etc. Zhen & Murphy (2007) have pointed out that

“compared to the amount of literature about native speaking ESL teachers’

beliefs…in western countries, there are fewer studies in pertinent research

domains of nonnative speaking EFL teachers” (p. 2). This means that there is

a serious gap in empirical research that needs to be narrowed in countries like

Vietnam, and this study is a modest and tentative attempt toward that goal.

The study reported here took not only its inspiration, but also very largely

the research design, from a study conducted a few years ago (Burgess &

Etherington, 2002) with a view to exploring the attitudes of a group of

Vietnamese EAP teachers to the role of grammar teaching in their courses,

and to make comparisons with the British teachers reported by Burgess &

Etherington (2002) and with New Zealand EAP teachers surveyed in 2008

(Barnard & Scampton, 2009).

The Journal of Asia TEFL

247

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Teaching of Grammar

The consensus among applied linguists is that language learning should

have a primary focus on meaning within an overall communicative

framework. However, “the inability of communicative ESL teaching to

promote high levels of accuracy is now clear” (Fotos, 1998). Hence, over the

past decade there has been a re-focus on grammar teaching (see Nassaji &

Fotos, 2004). There is current theoretical debate between applied linguists -

even sharp controversy (for example, Sheen 2003; Sheen & O’Neill, 2005) -

who argue for a focus on forms (FonfS), and those who propose a focus on

form (FonF).

In the former, the teacher plans a series of lessons around specific grammar

points in order to: promote an explicit understanding of grammar by a variety

of means; provide written & oral exercises to practise the target form; and

allow frequent opportunities for the (communicative) use of the target form.

FonfS is most obviously exemplified by the Presentation, Practice, Production

(PPP) model, although grammar can also be taught explicitly and inductively

through activities such as ‘dictogloss’ (Wajnryb, 1990) consciousness-raising

activities based on input texts (Ellis, 1992; Ellis & Gaies, 1999).

Focus on form, on the other hand, assumes an indirect, context-based focus

on grammar, rather than overt, teacher-led instruction. Ellis (2001a) has

distinguished two types within this category: incidental and planned.

Proponents of incidental FonF (for example, Doughty & Williams, 1998, p.

23) assume that classroom activity is based on communicative tasks and that

attention to form should be paid only when grammatical difficulties arise

which lead to (or are anticipated to lead to) a communicative breakdown. At

this point, remedial treatment is effected by transitory corrective feedback,

and when more extended grammar treatment is needed, this should be based

on grammar problem-solving tasks, rather than forms-focussed instruction.

Planned FonF, on the other hand, involves the treatment of pre-determined


248

grammatical features but differs from FonFs because it occurs when the

learners’ attention is primarily engaged in processing meaning (Ellis, 2002).

It may thus be seen as an intervening point in a continuum between the other

two approaches. Various empirical studies investigating FonF in some

English as a Second Language contexts have been recently conducted,

notably by Ellis and his associates (Basturkmen, Loewen & Ellis, 2004; Ellis,

2001a and b; 2002; Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen, 2001; Ellis, Basturkmen &

Loewen, 2002).

In his review of current issues in the teaching of grammar from the

perspective of mainstream SLA (second language acquisition) research, Ellis

(2006) reinforces the point made above that, for all but a few researchers

following the ‘no-interface’ line taken by Krashen (1981), there is now

general agreement that grammar has a central place in language teaching.

However, he also points to the lack of empirical evidence within SLA

research to provide clear answers about when and how grammar should be

taught, and indeed what grammatical features should be included in a

language syllabus. Ellis concludes his review with statement of ten personal

beliefs he holds based upon his interpretation of what the research has shown,

and admits that they are open to challenge, not least because he is hedging his

bets in a number of cases. Typically, both of Ellis and the genre of article he

has written, the review concludes with suggestions for further research; these

include the need to study learners’ implicit knowledge and use of grammar,

longitudinal studies investigating the effects of instruction over time, and

further research into the effects of corrective feedback. Interestingly, he does

not suggest that language teachers’ beliefs about grammar teaching should be

investigated, nor does he refer in his review to the work carried out in this

area over the previous decade. This omission is not surprising, since

mainstream SLA research tends to discount the personal values of teachers

(and students) as uncontrollable - and inconvenient - variables in the

experimental type of study which still tends to dominate the field.


249

The Importance of Teachers’ Beliefs

The whole issue of second language instruction (as opposed to natural,

untutored acquisition) depends crucially on understanding the role of the

teacher vis-à-vis the learners. Unless the view is taken of teachers as

unmotivated mechanisms, it is necessary to enter their minds if one wishes to

really understand the effect on instruction on learning. Research on teachers’

beliefs or thought processes and the relationship of these beliefs and

pedagogical practice originated in America in the early 1970s. Following the

publication of Life in Classrooms (Jackson, 1968), the National Institute of

Education of America (1975) published a report which enunciated the need

for research on teachers’ thought processes (instructional beliefs) more

deeply. The report stated that:

It is obvious that what teachers do is directed in no small measure by what

they think. Moreover, it will be necessary for any innovations in the

context, practices, and technology of teaching to be mediated through the

minds and motives of teachers…[If] teaching is done … by human

teachers, the question of the relationships between thought and action

becomes crucial. (p. 1)

Since then, the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their instructional

practices has increasingly attracted educational researchers’ attention. In

general, research on teachers’ thought processes is based on the three major

assumptions: (i) teaching is largely influenced by teacher cognition, (ii)

teaching is guided by teachers’ thoughts and judgments, and (iii) teaching

constitutes a high-level decision-making process (Isenberg, 1990). As Clark

& Peterson (1986) have claimed, teaching is “substantially influenced and

even determined by teachers’ underlying thinking” (p. 255). However, it has

long been recognised that individuals’ thinking processes and belief systems

cannot merely be observed or measured, but instead must be inferred from

what individuals say - and this has conventionally been investigated by

attitude measurement techniques, often via questionnaires.


250

Over the years, surveys within mainstream educational research have been

carried out to identify teachers’ beliefs, employing a wide range of cognitive

constructs and diverse operational definitions of attitudes, knowledge,

thinking, conceptions, assumptions, values, principles, decision-making, and

so on. Borg (2006, p. 272) has argued that in order to ensure inter-study

reliability, there is a need for a shared terminological framework. In the

current absence of such, the view will be taken in this paper that attitudes are

the surface expression of underlying values, beliefs and knowledge. However,

such attitudes may not fully represent the deeper constructs for various

reasons such as: an individual’s lack of explicit awareness of the underlying

conceptual framework; an internal contradiction between and within belief

categories; and/or a simple inability, or unwillingness, to convey these to

another person. Thus, at best, eliciting teachers’ attitudes through a

questionnaire is barely scratching the surface of much deeper cognitive

processes, but one which – it may be argued – is a necessary first step

towards more fully exploring cognitive processing. It is also evident that

what a teacher believes or knows may not always correlate highly with his or

her professional practice. Thus, investigations into teachers’ beliefs should be

balanced by consideration of their actual behavior in planning and executing

classroom activities, and the extent of the convergence or divergence between

beliefs and practice explored by both researchers and participant teachers. It

is important to acknowledge this as a further limitation to the issues raised by

the study reported in this paper, and in other reports of survey studies.

The Attitudes of Second Language Teachers to the Teaching of

Grammar

The field of Second Language Teacher Education has tended to lag behind

mainstream educational research in its attempt to understand the cognitive

dimensions of second language teaching (Johnson, 1994), and it was not until

recently that understanding how second language teachers’ cognitive processes

influence their classroom instruction began to draw the attention of second


251

language teacher education researchers (Borg, 1998a and b; 1999 a, b and c;

2001; 2003a and b; 2005; 2006; Freeman, 1989; Johnson, 1992a, 1992b;

Richards, Li & Tang 1998; Richards & Nunan, 1990; Woods, 1996).

Borg (2003a and b; 2006) reviewed 64 studies of language teacher

cognition, 38 of which focused on grammar teaching. The overwhelming

majority of studies he reviewed were conducted in Europe, Britain or North

America, mostly in second rather than foreign language contexts, and with

‘native-speaking’ teachers working with adult learners in universities or

private institutions. Only ten studies involving Asian teachers were reported:

four in Singapore (Chia, 2003; Farrell, 1999; Ng & Farrell, 2003; Farrell &

Lim, 2005) and six in Hong Kong (Andrews, 1997; 1999a and b; 2001;

Andrews & McNeil, 2005). Borg (2006, p. 133) emphasized the need for

research in a greater variety of contexts.

Apart from those reviewed by Borg, very few other studies into Asian

teachers’ beliefs about grammar have been identified. Richards, Gallo &

Renandya (2001) surveyed 112 Asian EFL teachers in an in-service training

course, and found that “many of the respondents still hold firmly to the belief

that grammar is central to language learning and that direct grammar teaching

is needed by their EFL/ESL students” (p. 54). Patricia (2003) studied two

experienced English teachers in a Singaporean primary school and the

various data collected revealed that, although their beliefs about grammar

teaching did influence their classroom activity, these teachers’ actual

instructional decisions and practices were often influenced by factors other

than their personal beliefs, some of which were beyond their control. Similar

findings emerged from Zhen & Murphy’s (2007) study of 6 EFL university

teachers in China. With specific regard to teachers’ attitudes in Vietnam,

although some unpublished theses relating to Vietnamese teachers’ beliefs

have been reported (for example, Ellis, 1994; McCook, 1998), apparently

only one study has been published internationally. This was a small-scale

report (Lewis & McCook, 2002) of reflective journals written by 14

Vietnamese high school teachers during an in-service course. Although the

focus of this study was not directly concerned with the teaching of grammar,


252

the teachers often made comments which suggested, for example, that both

fluency and accuracy were foci of their teaching, and that the traditional role

of the teacher in explaining grammar was important (Lewis & McCook, 2002,

p. 149).

Of particular relevance to the present study are three surveys. The first of

these was carried out by Burgess & Etherington (2002) to identify the

attitudes of 48 British teachers of EAP in UK universities. The findings from

this survey indicated that the responding teachers “appear to see grammar as

important for their students and to have a sophisticated understanding of the

problems and issues involved in its teaching” (Burgess & Etherington, 2002,

p. 450). The teachers favoured discourse-based approaches, rather than

decontextualised presentation of grammar items, with an inclination towards

the use of authentic, full texts and real-life tasks for practice. The authors

then claim (p. 450) that the use of texts, rather than isolated structures, to

introduce grammatical features suggests a tendency for these teachers to

adopt an approach based on FonF principles. However, the emphasis placed

by the British teachers on the systematic practice of grammatical features and

the correction of errors suggests that there is also a clear attention to the

explicit and detailed treatment of forms rather than strict adherence to FonF,

as expounded by Long (1991) and Long & Robinson (1998).

The second is a study by Barnard & Scampton (2009) which adapted

Burgess & Etherington’s questionnaire to survey 32 EAP teachers in New

Zealand; in this case, the questionnaire was followed up with email

interviews of a sample of the respondents. The New Zealand teachers, like

those of the British teachers in the 2002 survey, favoured the treatment of

grammatical features in complete texts, rather than in isolation. Consistent

with this view, the New Zealand EAP teachers rejected a strictly forms-

focussed (FonfS) strategy with a pre-determined grammatical syllabus and

emphatically preferred to deal with grammatical issues as they arose from the

texts used to develop generic EAP skills. To this extent, their approach may

be regarded as generally reactive, although there were some instances where

they adopted proactive (planned) forms-focussed strategies – for example, by


253

devising grammar worksheets for systematic treatment in subsequent classes.

However, it is clear that their treatment of the emerging grammatical issues

was generally far from the ‘transitory’ remediation suggested by many

proponents of a FonF strategy (e.g. Long & Robinson, 1998). Like the British

teachers in the 2002 survey, they paid much attention to extensive practice

(both structural and otherwise) and both they and their students attached

importance to the explicit correction of formal errors, for example by the use

of correcting codes.

The third is a recent survey (Borg & Burns, 2008) of beliefs about the

integration of grammar and skills teaching. A questionnaire comprising both

open- and close ended items was completed by 231 teachers of English from

South America (2.5%), Asia (23.2%), Europe (25.7%) and Australia and

New Zealand (46%). In this survey, the number of respondents from South

America was very small (n=6) and the authors (Borg & Burns, 2008, p. 461)

decided to exclude their responses from their analysis of the findings.

Although 76% of the remaining respondents worked in universities and other

Adult Education Centres, there is no indication that EAP was in focus either

in the questionnaire items or in the responses. While some of the respondents

were reported to be from Vietnam, it is not clear how many there were, nor

were any explicit statements from Vietnamese teachers reported in the article.

Much of the authors’ discussion of their findings (Borg & Burns, 2008, pp.

476-480) was taken with considering how their respondents perceived the

relationship between grammar and the teaching of language skills in

apparently General English (rather than specifically EAP) classes, but they

also discussed their teachers’ beliefs about the centrality of grammar to

language instruction, and some of the points they raised will be considered in

the final section of the present paper.

What emerges from all the studies considered above is that teachers do

hold sometimes very firm beliefs about various aspects of teaching -

including the place of grammar in language teaching – and that these

influence what they do in their classrooms. There is also reported to be a

wide range of factors which give rise to classroom beliefs and practice.


254

Language teachers, acting as reflective professional practitioners, may well

take into account insights derived from theoretical insights and empirical

research studies to facilitate the development of their knowledge and

pedagogy. However, their belief systems are affected by other factors, some

of which relate to their background experience as language learners and/or

their specialised professional development as language teachers – but others

which do not. For example, the beliefs of many teachers may be influenced

by the imposition of authoritarian standards, either directly by inspectors,

principals and heads of department, or indirectly by prescribed textbooks

which often constitute the entire curriculum. Their professional perceptions

may also be shaped by the influence of colleagues, social acquaintances or

even ‘significant others’ in their personal lives, as well as their own individual

(meta) cognitive schemata, processes and strategies. More immediately, and

more importantly, the specific context in which they carry out their teaching

and especially perhaps, their understanding of the needs, interests and

abilities of their students, will colour their value judgments and possibly lead

to long-term changes in their belief systems. In short, “Language teaching,

then, can be seen as a process which is defined by dynamic interactions

among cognition, context and experience” (Borg, 2006, p. 275).

So far, no studies have been identified that have specifically investigated

the attitudes of Vietnamese teachers regarding form-focussed instruction.

Thus it was decided that a survey of a group of these teachers’ attitudes

would complement previous studies, and add to academic and professional

understanding about what teachers believe about key aspects of grammar

teaching.

THE PRESE T STUDY

Research Questions

It was decided that the same research questions used by Burgess &


255

Etherington (2002, p. 437) would guide the present study:

• Which attitudes about grammar and grammar teaching are most widely held by

EAP teachers (in Vietnam)?

• Is there a bias towards decontextualised presentation of grammar and away from

discourse-based, unified approaches?

Thus, the present study sought to ascertain whether EAP teachers in

Vietnam held similar views to those in Britain and New Zealand about the

importance of grammar and the use of discourse-based approaches.

Participants and Setting

The participants were 29 teachers in Vietnamese universities and other

institutes of higher education, all of whom taught EAP courses as all or part

of their teaching duties. There were two main differences – apart, of course,

from nationality, language background and context – between the British and

New Zealand participants and those in the present study. Firstly, the

Vietnamese teachers were a cohort of graduate students following an MA

programme in Applied Linguistics, which was not the case in either Britain

or New Zealand; some of the latter, therefore, might have been more highly

qualified than the Vietnamese teachers, although the respective length of

teaching experience between the three groups was comparable. The second

point is that the British teachers were all teaching pre-sessional EAP courses,

while those in Vietnam (like those in New Zealand) were teaching on a range

of EAP programmes, most of which operated alongside the content area

undergraduate courses (for example in Business, or Tourism) rather than in

preparation for them.

Data Collection Procedures

With the permission of Sian Etherington, a somewhat modified version of


256

the 2002 questionnaire was used. Burgess & Etherington used a five-point

response scale; however, the version used in Vietnam (see Appendix) – like

that in Barnard & Scampton (2009) - solicited only four responses: strongly

disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree. The reason for this was that

there is a tendency for many responses to regress to the central point (#3 – no

opinion) in a five-point scale; moreover, the four-point scale facilitated a

straightforward descriptive analysis of positive and negative responses,

something which led to some uncertainty in interpreting and discussions of

the findings in Burgress & Etherington’ study.

The forty statements in the 2002 questionnaire were translated into

Vietnamese, and back-translated into English by a recognised bilingual

translator, and then piloted with a small group of EAP teachers working in a

local university; minor adjustments to the wording were made in the light of

comments by these respondents. The participants of the main study were

advised in writing of the scope and purpose of the survey and their formal

consent to participate was sought and granted. They were shown the

Vietnamese version and also the English version, which they completed; this

was done to ensure that, when considering their responses, they as fully as

possible understood the conceptual meaning of the propositions. The

questionnaires were administered in class to the participants by the second

author of this article, who was not at that time known to the participants; this

administration ensured that there was a 100% return rate. although the

possibility of a number of socially acceptable responses cannot be altogether

dismissed.

SURVEY RESULTS

The presentation which follows focuses only on some of the questionnaire

items – those most central to the two research questions – and it should be

recalled that the responses ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree

(4). The percentages indicated have been rounded to the nearest tenth of a


257

percentile.

The Centrality of Grammar in Language Teaching

TABLE 1 Questionnaire Items on Grammar in Language Teaching

Questionnaire Item 1 2 3 4

% % % %

1.1 The role of grammar…is as a framework for the

rest of language.

3.6 32.1 53.6 10.7

1.2 Learners study grammar by their exposure to the

environment of using the language naturally.

6.9 55.2 34.5 3.4

1.3 Teaching linguistic forms helps learners produce

right grammar.

0 27.6 55.2 17.2

1.6 Learners need a conscious knowledge of

grammar to improve their language.

3.4 20.7 65.5 10.3

1.10 Excluding grammar from the language

teaching program is beneficial to the learners.

27.6

34.5 31.0 6.9

20. Explicit discussion of grammar rules is

beneficial to learners.

10.3 17.2 62.1 19.3

2.3 My students expect teachers to present grammar

points clearly/ explicitly.

0 7.1 46.4 46.4

2.13 �ot teaching grammar explicitly worries my

students.

0 20.7 44.8 34.5

From the above, it can be seen that there is substantial agreement among

the Vietnamese teachers on the centrality of grammar (1.1), of its benefit to

the learners (1.3) and, especially, of the students’ wish for grammar to be

explicitly explained (2.0 and 2.3), as well as their apparent concern if it is not

(2.13). Moreover, the two notions that grammar can be learned through

exposure to language in natural use (1.2) and that learners would benefit if

grammar were excluded from the programme (1.10) were each rejected by

62.1% of the respondents. It is important to note, as did Burgess &

Etherington (2002, p. 441), that some of the above attitudes - while

ostensibly focussing on the learners’ needs and wishes - may actually reflect

the pedagogical preferences of the teachers.


258

The Role of Practice

TABLE 2 Questionnaire Items on the Role of Practice


% % % %

1.5 Learners can improve their grammatical

accuracy through regular structure drills.

6.9 6.9 72.4 13.8

1.11 �on-contextual structural drills play a certain

role in the language learning process.

13.8 34.5 44.8 6.9

1.12 Structure drills for generative purposes play an

essential role in the learning process.

3.4 20.7 69.0 6.9

2.2 Problem-solving techniques in learning

grammar increase my learners’ motivation.

0 24.1 58.6 17.2

2.20 My learners find it demotivating to use

problem-solving techniques to study grammar.

20.7 48.3 27.6 3.4

As can be seen from the 86.2% responses agreeing with statement 1.5 and

75.9% to statement 1.12, very positive attitudes towards the role of practice

were reported in this study. Interestingly, half of the Vietnamese teachers felt

that decontextualised practice of structures has a place in language learning.

Less ambiguous are the teachers’ responses to statement 2.2 and the

contrasting statement 2.20, which indicate that students found problem-

solving tasks motivating rather than frustrating. On the whole, it is evident

that the Vietnamese teachers consider that their learners benefit from

grammar practice of one sort or another. Much, perhaps, may depend on the

interpretation of ‘practice’; probably given the prevalence of traditional styles

of teaching in Vietnam (Howe, 1993; Ellis, 1994; 1996; Le, 2007; Lewis &

McCook, 2002), the translators of the questionnaire used the word ‘drills’ in

these statements in contrast to the use of ‘practice’ and ‘productive practice’

in the equivalent statements in the original questionnaire used by Burgess &

Etherington (2002).


259

The Correction of Errors

TABLE 3 Questionnaire Items on the Correction of Errors


% % % %

1.16 Teachers should only correct language forms

which hinder communication.

3.4 48.3 37.9 10.3

1.18 Correction focussing on language forms helps

learners improve their grammatical usage.

0 28.6 60.7 10.7

2.15 Teachers find it difficult to correct learners’

mistakes in communicative writing.

17.2 55.2 24.1 3.4

2.16 Teachers find it difficult to correct learners’

speaking mistakes.

13.8 62.1 17.2 6.9

The responses to statement 1.16 are interesting as the teachers in this study

were fairly evenly split over the issue, but there is clear evidence that these

EAP teachers agreed with statement 1.18 that correction of language forms

helped their learners. The majority of teachers did not find it difficult to

correct students’ written errors (2.15), whereas more than half found oral

errors more problematic (2.16). As Burgess & Etherington say (2002, p. 445),

“it could be concluded that teachers experience more difficulty in correction

during students’ spoken rather than written communication”. One implication

that can be drawn is that many teachers correct their students even when there

is no communication breakdown. If this assumption is correct, then it would

seem that these teachers take a more rigorous attitude towards errors than is

consistent with a FonF approach to the treatment of grammar. Clearly, this is

an issue that warrants further investigation.

The Use of Authentic Texts

TABLE 4 Questionnaire Items on the Use of Authentic Texts


% % % %

1.15 Students study grammar more effectively if 0 31.0 44.8 24.1


260

grammar is introduced in a full text.

2.6 My learners find it difficult to deal with grammar

introduced in real-life materials

10.7 32.1 32.1 25.0

2.9. My learners find real-life materials difficult because

of the vocabulary used in these materials.

0 20.7 58.6 20.7

2.10 My learners cannot find the relation between form

and functions in real-life materials without

teachers’ clear explanation.

0 27.6 55.2 17.1

2.11 Teachers find it time-consuming to use real-life

materials.

24.1 44.8 24.1 6.9

69% of the teachers showed their agreement or strong agreement that

grammar is more effectively learnt if it is introduced in a full text (1.15) –

and only just over half of them reported that their students found grammatical

difficulties in authentic materials (2.6). On the other hand, an overwhelming

majority - 89.3% - agreed with statement 2.9 that such texts did present

lexical problems. This may have led 72% of the them to point to the need for

the teacher to clearly explain form and function relationship in authentic

materials (2.10). However, over two thirds - 69% - of the teachers disagreed

that they find real-life materials (2.11) too time-consuming to use. On the

whole, responses to a range of issues relating to the use of authentic materials

indicate echo the point made in the 2002 survey: “no general feeling that

authentic texts take too much time in the classroom or in preparation”

(Burgess & Etherington, 2002, p. 446).

DISCUSSIO OF FI DI GS AS THEY RELATE TO THE

RESEARCH QUESTIO S

The above findings facilitate a tentative positioning of the Vietnamese

teachers within both a community of practice (Wenger, 1998) and a discourse

community of EAP practitioners, as represented by their British and New

Zealand counterparts. Swales (1990) has made the useful distinction between

speech and discourse communities; the former may be said to be locally-


261

based groups who ‘speak the same (academic) language’ face-to-face,

whereas discourse communities comprise dispersed academic groups who

communicate through texts. Thus, the Vietnamese teachers form part of a

local speech community of practice by regularly meeting together, such as in

the MA course they are following, to directly share their experiences, ideas

and reflections on practice. At the same time, although separated by distance,

there is a sense in which they are members of the wider discourse community

of EAP practitioners by virtue of having encountered, indirectly through

reading a common stock of academic works, similar constructs relating to

their academic development and pedagogic practice. Thus, despite specific

contextual differences between the three groups of EAP teachers, notably the

first language background and the very different environments in which they

teach, the Vietnamese teachers share with their discourse community a

commonality of views regarding their work.

Which Attitudes about Grammar and Grammar Teaching are

Most Widely Held by the EAP Teachers in Vietnam?

The survey responses strongly indicate that these Vietnamese teachers, like

their British and New Zealand counterparts, consider grammar to be a central

feature of language and a crucial element in their pedagogy. There is also

strong correspondence of views regarding the need for explicit grammar

instruction, the usefulness of explaining rules, the need for practice of various

kinds, and the importance attached to appropriate error correction. Evidently,

how these views are carried out in EAP classes will vary not only between

the groups, but within each community, and this is probably most evidently

the case as regards notions of ‘practice’, and no doubt a wide range of

correction strategies are employed. There are, of course, some issues which

distinguish the views of Vietnamese from those of the other groups. Notable

among these is their rejection of the notion that grammar can be learned

through exposure to language in natural environments. The disparity in views

may well be due to the simple fact that, in a foreign language learning context,


262

the Vietnamese students are much less able to access an English-speaking

environment, and therefore need to learn grammar more consciously than

their British or New Zealand counterparts.

Is there a Bias Towards Decontextualised Presentation of Grammar

and away from Discourse-Based, Unified Approaches?

The findings of all three surveys strongly reject this bias. The Vietnamese,

British and New Zealand teachers agreed with the introduction of grammar in

complete texts; interestingly, the percentage of positive responses in Vietnam

was higher than in the British study, and rather lower than in the New

Zealand survey. None of the groups felt that the use of authentic materials

was excessively time-consuming, or thought these materials presented their

students with particular grammatical problems, although many more Vietnamese

than British or New Zealand respondents pointed to the difficulties authentic

materials presented in terms of vocabulary, and a very high proportion –

almost nine out of ten - felt that their students needed clear instruction in

form-function mapping when using authentic materials. In summary, all three

groups of teachers have “an inclination towards the use of authentic texts and

real-life tasks for practice” (Burgess & Etherington, 2002, p. 450), although

there are likely to be varying interpretations of what exactly is meant by

‘authentic’ or ‘real life’.

Burgess & Etherington say that their findings indicate that their respondents

were “well-disposed to a Focus-on-Form approach” rather than one which

focusses on forms (2002, p. 450). This view may be given support by the

clear preference of the teachers in all three surveys to introduce grammatical

items through texts rather than in a decontextualised presentation, as may be

dealt with in approach based on PPP (Presentation, Practice, Production).

However, the strong endorsement by British – and New Zealand - teachers of

explicit attention to grammar and the agreement among more than two-thirds

of them that explicit discussion of grammar rules is beneficial to learners, is

quite inconsistent with focus on form as is currently advocated (Long 1991;


263

Long & Robinson, 1998) and the empirical studies carried out by Ellis and

his associates). The clear preference of Vietnamese teachers in the present

study for explicit grammatical instruction and controlled forms-focussed

practice also disconfirm basic tenets of focus on form.

The findings of the present study also broadly align with the portrait of

grammar teaching reported in the 2008 international survey (Borg & Burns,

2008), as being one “characterised by regular phases of explicit work, a

desire to encourage students to discover rules (without discounting the use of

direct explanation), and regular opportunities for grammar practice” (p. 477).

Referring to their respondents’ lack of technical language (such as ‘focus on

form’) despite their generally high level of qualifications, Borg & Burns

(2008, p. 479) go on to say: “The largely experiential nature of teachers’

evidence base in justifying their work… raises questions about the reliability

of their judgements about its effectiveness. These are issues which merit

continuing study”. This also raises interesting questions about the role of

theory in second language teacher development and practice. The implication

here is that professional experience may be unreliable; it may also be the case

that some SLA theoretical positions may be invalid – a point very sharply

made by Sheen & O’Neill (2005). Certainly, it is necessary to thoroughly

investigate the relationship between explicit theories as published in academic

works, and the implicit theories developed from teachers’ professional practice.

CO CLUSIO

The present study represents merely a one-off snapshot of the views of a

small number of Vietnamese EAP teachers, and no firm generalizations from

the survey can be inferred. As with the 2002 and 2008 studies, there was no

opportunity to use a split-half method to check reliability, although certain

statements were paired to check the consistency of responses. Moreover,

unlike the 2002 survey of British teachers, the Vietnamese teachers were not

asked for qualitative comments, which would have fleshed out the summary


264

responses. Burgess & Etherington (2002, p. 449) made the point that follow-

up interviews with at least a sample of their teachers would have been helpful,

and this was in fact done in the New Zealand study (Barnard & Scampton,

2009). It was hoped to interview some of the Vietnamese teachers, but

constraints of time and access did not permit it. Such interviews would have

been extremely valuable to gain deeper insights into what teachers believed,

but the point remains that there is an inevitable gap between espoused beliefs

and actual practice (and, of course, the findings from this study would have

carried more weight if it had been possible to observe the teachers in their

classrooms).

Despite these limitations, the present study has provided some useful

insights into the attitudes of a particular group of teachers in relation to

current theoretical positions regarding the role of grammar. It has been useful

to compare the attitudes of three groups of teachers working within the same

broad field of endeavour - Swales’ (1990) ‘discourse community’ - and to

note that the Vietnamese responses are not substantially dissimilar either

from their British and New Zealand counterparts or from those reported in

the few studies that have been carried out with other Asian teachers of

English. This has implications for methodologists of language teaching, and

also those responsible for the professional development of language teachers.

With regard to the former, the study gives weight, albeit perhaps slight, to the

increasing calls (eg., Brown, 2002; Kumaravadivelu, 2003) for context-

sensitive pedagogy - one in which approaches and methods are tailored to, if

not actually shaped by, the actual local conditions in which teaching and

learning occur and the constraints and opportunities which each situation

affords. Thus, in the design and implementation of curricula and textbooks,

greater attention needs to be paid to the contextual knowledge and

understanding that teachers bring to the task – and to the beliefs they hold as

a result of their experience. This in turn suggests that professional

development programmes for language teachers should find an appropriate

balance between what is argued from theoretical positions and indicated from

empirical studies in other contexts with the accrued wisdom of teachers who


265

actually have to make executive decisions in their classrooms. In short,

teacher development should be a locally co-constructed collegial endeavour,

and not a process of top-down imposition of ‘expert’ ideas drawn from

elsewhere.

Evidently, further empirical research needs to be carried out in more

contexts - not only into what teachers believe about grammar teaching -

among other things - but also into the extent to which such beliefs are

manifest in their classroom activity. This is a point acknowledged by Burgess

& Etherington (2002, p. 449) and others (for example, Borg, 2006; Farrell &

Lim, 2005; Zhen & Murphy, 2007). As Borg has asked (2003b, p. 105), “can

language teacher cognition be usefully studied without reference to what

happens in classrooms?” Human nature being what it is, it would not be

surprising to find that there are both convergences and divergences between

belief and action, but the important thing would be for both teachers,

researchers and teacher educators to gain insights as to why there should be

any disparities, and what effects these might have on language teaching and

learning. Therefore, in addition to surveys, (in-depth) interviews and

narrative accounts, research needs to be conducted through ethnographic

studies of classroom interaction and by post-observation discussion, the latter

facilitated, for example, by stimulated recall strategies (Gass & Mackey,

2000). There is also a need to explore the beliefs of students as well as their

teachers in order to see the extent to which their respective views coincide,

and the pedagogical implications of any dissonance. Given the increasing

importance of English Language Teaching in all its aspects throughout Asian

countries, and the relative lack of studies into teacher cognition in these

contexts, the need for systematic research is both necessary and urgent.

THE AUTHORS

Le Van Canh is Director of the International Cooperation Office of Hanoi

University of Languages and International Studies. He is also a senior


266

lecturer and teacher educator in the Department of Applied Linguistics. He

frequently makes international conference presentations and publishes on

issues relating to the history and current state of language teaching in

Vietnam, and on aspects of curriculum design and the professional

development of teachers. He has recently been an invited Academic Visitor at

the University of Waikato and Visiting Professor at Nakhon Ratchasima

Rajabhat University, Bangkok, and is currently involved in an in-depth

research project investigating the beliefs and practices of Vietnamese school

teachers of English regarding the teaching of grammar.

Email: [email protected]

Roger Barnard is a senior lecturer in the Department of General and

Applied Linguistics at the University of Waikato, New Zealand. His research

interests include language policy and planning at all levels from national

policies to micro-planning in language classrooms. He travels frequently to

Asian countries, and has recently accepted Visiting Professorships in Japan,

Vietnam and Korea. His most recent book is Barnard & Torres-Guzman

(Eds.) (2008) Creating classroom communities of learning, published by

Multilingual Matters.

Email: [email protected]

REFERE CES

Andrews, S. (1997). Metalinguistic knowledge and teacher explanation. Language

Awareness, 6, 147-161.

Andrews, S. (1999a). ‘All these like little name things’: A comparative study of

language teachers’ explicit knowledge of grammar and grammatical terminology.

Language Awareness, 8, 143-159.

Andrews, S. (1999b). Why do L2 teachers need to ‘know about language’? Teacher

metalinguistic awareness and input for learning. Language and Education, 13

(3), 161-177.

Andrews, S. (2001). The language awareness of the L2 teacher: Its impact upon

pedagogical practice. Language Awareness, 10, 75-90.


267

Andrews, S., & McNeil, A. (2005). Knowledge about language and the ‘good

language teacher’. In N. Bartels (Ed.), Applied linguistics and language

teacher education (pp. 159-178). New York: Springer.

Barnard, R., & Scampton, D. (2009). Teaching grammar: A survey of EAP teachers in

New Zealand. �ew Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 14, 59-82.

Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about

incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25

(2), 243-272.

Borg, M. (2001). Key concepts in ELT: Teachers’ beliefs. ELT Journal, 55(2), 186-

187.

Borg, S. (1998a). Talking about grammar in the foreign language classroom. Language

Awareness, 7, 159-175.

Borg, S. (1998b). Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative

study. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 9-38.

Borg, S. ( 1999a). Studying teacher cognition in second language grammar teaching.

System 27, 19-31.

Borg, S. (1999b). The use of grammatical terminology in the second language

classroom: A qualitative study of teachers’ practices and cognitions. Applied

Linguistics, 20(1), 95-126.

Borg, S. (1999c). Teachers’ theories in grammar teaching. ELT Journal, 53(3), 157-

167.

Borg. S. (2001). Self-perception and practice in teaching grammar. ELT Journal, 55

(1), 21-29.

Borg, S. (2003a). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on

what language teachers think, know, believe and do. Language Teaching, 36,

81-109.

Borg, S. (2003b.) Teacher cognition in grammar teaching: A literature review.

Language Awareness, 12(2), 96-108.

Borg, S. (2005). Experience, knowledge about language, and classroom experience in

teaching grammar. In N. Bartels (Ed.), Applied linguistics and language

teacher education (pp. 325-340). New York: Springer.

Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice.

London: Continuum.

Borg. S., & Burns, A. (2008). Integrating grammar in Adult TESOL classrooms.

Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 456-482.

Brown. H.D. (2002). English language teaching in the “Post-Method: era: Towards

better diagnosis, treatment and assessment. In J. C. Richards & W.A.

Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current


268

practice (pp. 19-26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burgess, J., & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or

implicit? System, 30, 433-458.

Chia, S. C. C. (2003). Singapore primary teachers’ beliefs in grammar teaching and

learning. In D. Deterding, A. S. Brown & E. L. Low (Eds.), English in

Singapore: Research on grammar (pp. 117-127). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C.

Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research and teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296).

New York: Macmillan.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty & J.

Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.

1-12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, G. (1996). How culturally appropriate is the communicative approach? ELT

Journal 50(3), 213-218.

Ellis, G. (1994). The appropriateness of the communicative approach in Vietnam: An

interview study in intercultural communication. Unpublished MA thesis.

Faculty of Education, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

Ellis, R. (1992). Second language acquisition and pedagogy. Clevedon, England:

Multilingual Matters.

Ellis, R. (2001a). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning 51,

Supplement 1, 1-46.

Ellis, R. (2001b). Form-focused instruction and second language learning. Malden,

MA: Blackwell.

Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit

knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,

24 (2), 223-236.

Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective.

TESOL Quarterly 40(1), 83-108.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative

ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281-318.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus on form. System, 34,

419-432.

Ellis, R., & Gaies, S. (1999). Impact grammar: Grammar through listening. Hong

Kong: Addison Wesley.

Farrell, T. S. C. (1999). The reflective assignment: Unlocking pre-service teachers’

beliefs on grammar teaching. RELC Journal, 30, 1-17.

Farrell. T. S. C., & Lim P. C. P. (2005). Conceptions of grammar teaching: A case

study of teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. TESL-EJ, 9, 1-13.


269

Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL Classroom. ELT

Journal 52 (4), 301-307.

Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development and decision making model: A

model of teaching and related strategies for language teacher education.

TESOL Quarterly, 23(1), 27-45.

Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language

research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Howe, S. (1993). Teaching in Vietnam. Interchange, 22, 29-32

Isenberg, J. P. (1990). Teachers’ thinking and beliefs and classroom practice.

Childhood Education, 66, 322-327.

Jackson, P.W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Johnson, K. E. (1992a). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices

during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of

Reading Behavior, 24(1), 83-108.

Johnson, K. E. (1992b). Learning to teach: Instructional actions and decisions of

preservice ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 26(3), 507-535.

Johnson, K. E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of preservice

English as second language teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4),

439-452.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning.

Oxford: Pergamon.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Le, V. C. (2007). A historical review of English language education in Vietnam. In Y.

H. Choi & B. Spolsky (Eds.), English education in Asia: History and policies

(pp.168-180). Seoul: Asia TEFL.

Lewis, M., & McCook, F. (2002). Cultures of teaching: Voices from Vietnam. ELT

Journal, 56(2), 146-153.

Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching

methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign

language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.

Long, H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C.

Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language

acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McCook, F. (1998). A longitudinal study of responses to in-service teacher education

by Vietnamese English language teachers. Unpublished MA thesis. Massey

University, New Zealand.


270

Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research in the teaching of

grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.

National Institute of Education of America (1975). Teaching as clinical information

processing [microform] : �IE Conference on Studies in Teaching : panel 6

[N.L. Gage, editor; Kent Viehoever, coordinating editor]. Washington, DC.:

National Conference on Studies in Teaching 1974.

Ng, J., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2003). Do teachers’ beliefs of grammar teaching match

their classroom practices? A Singapore case study. In D. Deterding, A. S.

Brown & E.L. Low (Eds.), English in Singapore: Research on grammar (pp.

128-137). Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education.

Patricia, L. P. C. (2003). Primary school teachers’ beliefs about effective grammar

teaching and their actual classroom practices: A Singapore case study. Retrieved

December 27, 2006 from the World Wide Web http://davidd.myplace.nie.edu.sg.

Richards, J. C., Li, B., & Tang, A. (1998). Exploring pedagogical reasoning skills. In

J. C. Richards (Ed.), Beyond Training (pp. 86-102). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Richards, J. C., & Nunan, D. (1990). Second language teacher education. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C., Gallo, P. B., & Renandya, W.A. (2001). Exploring teachers’ beliefs

and the processes of change. The PAC Journal, 1(1), 41-62.

Sheen, R., (2003). Focus on form: A myth in the making? ELT Journal, 57(3), 225-

233.

Sheen, R., & O’Neill, R. (2005). Tangled up in form: Critical comments on

‘Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom

practices’ by Basturkmen, Loewen, and Ellis. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 268-

274.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wajnryb, R. (1990). Resource books for teachers: Grammar dictation. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making

and classroom practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Zhen, Z., & Murphy, E. (2007). Tensions in the language learning experiences and

beliefs of Chinese teachers of English as a foreign language. TESL-EJ, 10(4),

1-19.


271

APPE DIX: THE VIET AM QUESTIO AIRE

Part I: Grammar Approach

Please specify the degree you agree or disagree with the statements on the

roles of grammar and grammar teaching methods for an English preparatory

class to serve academic purposes. If you strongly agree, please tick 4 in the

table. If you agree, please tick 3. If you disagree, please tick 2. If you

strongly disagree, please tick 1 in the table. Choose one option.

Disagree Agree

1. The role of grammar in a language can be seen:

a) As a framework of a language, i.e. a basic system on which

other aspects are build.

1 2 3 4

b) As blocks of language combined to create the whole. 1 2 3 4

c) As a supplement for sufficient linguistic competence: a

refinement for a more basic linguistic knowledge.

1 2 3 4

d) As an equal backbone for sufficient linguistic competence.

(Other backbones can be knowledge of phonetics, appropriate

and cultivated language command, etc.)

1 2 3 4

2. Learners study grammar by their exposure to the environment

of using the language naturally.

1 2 3 4

3. Teaching linguistic forms helps learners produce right

grammar.

1 2 3 4

4. Learners’ using the language is unrelated to the conscious

knowledge of the grammar system and its functions.

1 2 3 4

5.Learners can improve their grammatical accuracy through

regular structure drills.

1 2 3 4

6. Learners need conscious knowledge of grammar to improve

their language.

1 2 3 4

7. Structure drills are always in a complete communicative

context.

1 2 3 4

8. Separate treatment of grammar cannot bring linguistic

knowledge for students to use in natural communication.

1 2 3 4

9. Learners should be consciously aware of the forms and

functions of structures before using them sufficiently.

1 2 3 4

10. Excluding grammar from the language teaching program is

beneficial to the learners.

1 2 3 4


272

11. Non-contextual structure drills play a certain role in the

language learning process.

1 2 3 4

12. Structure drills for generative purpose play an essential role

in the learning process.

1 2 3 4

13. Grammar is best taught through communicative activities. 1 2 3 4

14. Participating in language activities in real life is the best

way for learners to develop their grammatical knowledge.

1 2 3 4

15. Learners study grammar more effectively if grammar is

introduced in a full text.

1 2 3 4

16. Teachers should only correct language forms which hinder

communication.

1 2 3 4

17. Comparison and contrast of individual structures is beneficial

to learners’ grammar learning.

1 2 3 4

18. Correction focussing on language forms helps learners

improve their grammar usage.

1 2 3 4

19. Grammar is best taught through individual structures. 1 2 3 4

20. Explicit discussion of grammar rules is beneficial to learners. 1 2 3 4

Part II. Learners’ and teachers’ difficulties with grammar

Following are the issues on learners’ and teachers’ way of dealing with

grammar in the classroom. Please specify your agreement or disagreement on

the following statements as in the previous part.

Disagree Agree

1. My learners find it difficult to apply grammatical knowledge

to communicate.

1 2 3 4

2. Problem-solving techniques in learning grammar increase my

learners’ motivation.

1 2 3 4

3. My learners want the teacher to explain grammar clearly/

explicitly.

1 2 3 4

4. My learners find it more interesting to learn grammar through

an example of a sentence.

1 2 3 4

5. My learners like combining meanings and structures better by

themselves.

1 2 3 4

6. My learners find it difficult to deal with grammar introduced

in real-life materials.

1 2 3 4

7. My learners find real-life materials difficult because there are

a variety of structures in these materials.

1 2 3 4


273

8. My learners find real-life materials difficult because these

materials are closely related to culture.

1 2 3 4

9. My learners find real-life materials difficult because of the

vocabulary used in these materials.

1 2 3 4

10. My learners cannot find the relations between forms and

functions in real-life materials without teachers’ clear explanation.

1 2 3 4

11. Teachers find it time-consuming to use real-life materials. 1 2 3 4

12. Teachers find it difficult to introduce suitable tasks on the

basis of real-life materials.

1 2 3 4

13. Not teaching grammar explicitly worries my learners. 1 2 3 4

14. My learners find grammar terms beneficial. 1 2 3 4

15. Teachers find it difficult to correct learners’ mistakes in

communicative writing.

1 2 3 4

16. Teachers find it difficult to correct learners’ speaking mistakes. 1 2 3 4

17. My learners find it difficult to improve grammar accuracy in

a communicative writing activity.

1 2 3 4

18. My learners find it difficult to improve grammatical accuracy in

a communicative speaking activity.

1 2 3 4

19. My learners find it difficult to use grammatical terms. 1 2 3 4

20. My learners find it demotivating to use problem-solving

techniques to study grammar.

1 2 3 4

Documents

Teaching Grammar: A Survey of Teachers’ Attitudes in